R.C. Bansal And Pradeep Jain vs The Food Corporation Of India
2005 Latest Caselaw 670 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Seniority List vide circulate No. 5(18)/76-E III/NZ dated 12-3-1996 (Anexure P-15) and the second list vide circular No. 5(18)98-EIII/NZ dated 27-10-1999 (Annexure P-18) and quash the same to the extend the name of the petitioners were incorrectly shown as No. 115 and 116.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the petitioners' seniority in the Technical cadre taking into account their original promotion in 1972 on the basis of the principles laid down in the judgment dated 25-3-1992 by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 338 of 1987 read with Regulation 12 of the Staff Regulation and place them in serial No. 51 and 52 respectively in the Zonal Seniority list of 12.03.1996 (Annexure P-15) reckoning the service rendered by them as Assistant Managers from the year 1972.

iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to determine the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Manager (Technical) ignoring the revision period i.e. 30-10-1973 to 18-10-1976 with all co-sequential benefits.

iv) issue any other writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may; deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and

v) award cost of this petition to the petitioners."

2. So far as the Seniority Lists dated 12th March, 1996 and 27th October, 1999, are concerned, the following averments made in the Counter Affidavit make it abundantly clear that these reliefs have already been rendered infructuous :

"The averments made in the corresponding Para of the Petition are denied. As regards the seniority list dt. 12.3.1996, the same has since been superseded by the answering respondents. Moreover, the Writ Petition filed in 2001 to challenge the seniority list issued in 1996 is clearly not maintainable. The seniority list issued on 27.0.1999 has also been withdrawn by the FCI and has ceased to be in force as pointed out hereinabove and hence is not available to be challenged."

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had reflected on the question of seniority raised in this Writ Petition in its judgment dated March 25, 1992 in the case of FCCI v. H.R. Bharti (Civil Appeal No. 338 of 1987). Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that this judgment has not been complied with qua the petitioners. In response to this argument, my attention had been drawn to the letter dated 5th March, 1993 on the subject - "Revised Provisional Zonal List of Assistant Manager (QC) as on 31.12.87."

Treat stress has been laid on the word `Revised' in the caption of that letter. The caption/subject cannot determine and qualify every statement made in the letter. A reading of the first paragraph of the letter shows that after adverting to the Revised Zonal Seniority List, a final list was prepared of which the said letter dated 5th March, 1993, was the cover. The paragraph reads as follows :

"In pursuance of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment pronounced on 25.3.92 in Civil Appeal 338 of 1987-FCI v. H.R. Bharti, Civil Appeal No. 530 of 1987-FCI v. Shri Dharam Singh and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 531 of 1987 (with I.A. Nos. 1 and 2(91)- FCI v. Shri P.N. Verma and Ors., writ petitions No. 1818 of 1989-Shri Upender Kumar v. FCI and Ors., the provisional seniority list of Asstt. Manager (QC) issued vide this office letter cited as on 31.12.1987 has been revised and a revised zonal seniority list of Asstt. Manager (QC) as on 31.12.1987 is enclosed herewith for circulation amongst the concerned officers. Controlling Heads are requested to take action as under :-

i) 30 days time may be given to the officers for pointing out errors/omissions for registering their objections if any with regard to assignment of seniority and service particulars, etc.

ii) objections received form the officers should prima-facie be examined in detail at Regional level with reference to the record before its transmission to Zonal Office (North), Along with ......

iii) Authencity of the certificate of officers belonging to SC/ST community should be verified in case any officer represents for additions etc;

iv) No representation should be entertained without justification beyond the stipulated period of 30 days;

v) That the officers on the seniority list are in position in the capacity they have been shown or anyone ceased form the services of the Corporation should be intimated;

vi) Representations received in this office at belated stage will not be entertained. However it will be at the discretion of the competent authority to screen such papers if circumstances so warrant; and

vii) That the correct particulars of the officers against whose names, some columns have been left blank may be furnished to this office immediately for inserting in the seniority list.

It is, therefore, requested to ensure proper circulation of seniority list amongst the concerned officers to give due opportunity for raising objections. We have been receiving representations prior to it for addition of qualification /change of marital status/ the addition of name in the seniority list. This has been done to the extent it was possible."

4. The letter specifically refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, it cannot not be correct to contend that steps to implement the said judgment have not be taken. The language leaves no manner of doubt that the provisional list had been revised. So far as the Respondent were concerned, this was Final.

5. It has been contended by Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioners had filed objections to this List within the period of thirty days. In other words, according to the Petitioner, a dispute had arisen at least by April 1993. It is not denied by learned Counsel for the Respondent that Representations had been made by the Petitioners up to 2001. The only inference that can be drawn is that those Representations fell on deaf ears. Even in such a situation, bringing the disputes to Court after almost a decade would not justify this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. This is especially so in a matter which concerns the seniority of employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated on several occasions that seniority which has remained for long periods and has thus become `Settled' should be interfered with only with great circumspection. Disputes of this nature must always be contemplated in the context that if the Petitioner succeeds it will invariably be at the expense and cost of several officers. Therefore, the principle of laches should be employed most strictly and strenuously in disputes of this genre. My attention has been justifiably drawn to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point inter alia in Scooters India and Ors. v. Vijai E.V. Eldred [ (1998) 6 SCC 549 ] and Y. Ramamohan and Ors. v. Government of India and Ors. [ (2001) 10 SCC 537 ].

6. It has been vehemently contended that the Seniority List of 1996 and 1999 have been unequivocably given up for the first time in course of the hearing of this Petition; thus the Petitioners were not aware of the documents relied upon by the Respondent. Even if that is so, the fact is that Count cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that it is the 1993 List that is holding the field.

7. Jural interference after almost fifteen years would be most inappropriate. The Petitioners have also assailed their reversion which avowedly occurred in 1993. Even if there was a lack of definiteness or permanence in the Seniority List of 1993, the reversion should have been immediately challenged with diligence.

8. This is not a case which warrants the exercise or jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since there has been some ambivalence in regard to the Seniority, two provisional lists having been put forward and thereafter, either superseded and/or canceled, costs are not justified.

9. Petitions are dismissed. No orders as to costs.